Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
They were born with a penis, no ovaries, and XY chromosomes.
Stop trying to see if people have penises. It isn't any of your business whether or not a woman has a penis and whether or not she does you may not look up her skirt to find out.
They are not changing into women they always were women.Again, no they weren't.
Well they say they were always women. Are you saying that you are a better judge of a person's identity than they are? That seems rude and arrogant and dismissive of the autonomy of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
You are proposing that we treat a woman differently if they were Raped versus if they had consensual sex. This seems reasonable on the surface but really it is not and here is why.
It is none of your business what has happened to her vagina. You should not ask women if tbey have been raped or force them to prove that they were Raped and so it is most logical to treat all women with equal consideration and compassion. Even those who were not in fact raped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
In order to be transgender, you have to believe that a man can become a woman, and that a woman can become a man.
This shows a misunderstanding of what transgenderism actually is. A trans woman is a woman both before and after they actually transition.
They are not changing into women they always were women. All that is changing is now they presenting as one so that people like you will recognize their very basic right to be treated like a woman.
Created:
Posted in:
Metals didn't just pop into existence.
Metals were formed through fusion in the nuclear furnace that is a star. This is a perfectly natural process which doesn't require any creator. Most thing in the universe likewise are formed through natural processes.
you just don't believe either.
To believe before have sufficient evidence would be premature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
How do you tell a boy from a girl?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
I think it is very pertinent.
Follow my logic.
No woman should be held responsible for getting pregnant if they were raped.
You don't have the right to interrogate women about this particular.
You therefore should never make the presumption that a woman is specifically responsible for her pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There is no transsexual ideology there are only people who are transsexuals and people who are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
In order for something to exist, it first must be created right?
Can you demonstrate that this is necessarily true? It would in fact appear as though most things in the universe were not created at all but simply came about through natural processes and even those things which are "created" by humans are upon second reflection actually just a reconfiguration of already existing things.
Also while I am prepared to accept that something cannot spontaneously begin to exist for the purpose of this conversation I am not necessarily convinced in my personal philosophy That it would be a total impossibility. From the available evidence I have equal reason to suspect that something at some time some thing spontaneously began to exist (possibly at the same moment in which time began to exist) as to believe in any instigating force. None at all.
So, you believe that something began to exist from nothing?
If you will read what I wrote again carefully you will see that I very clearly stated that I have no reason to believe that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
( assuming here the absence of some abnormal circumstance (( e. g. rape )).
I'm not sure we can really call rape abnormal unfortunately, for though we wish they would not adults to tend to rape each other rather a lot.
That in mind should you be able to force a young woman to somehow prove she was raped before getting the benefits necessary to care for the child?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Yes tha k you but it isn't actually the definitions involved that are perplexing me but to whom you are applying this definition and by what metric.
When a young lady becomes pregnant whom is most "at fault"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Well if there is even a difference why not tell us both along with your reasoning for why they are the responsible party?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Could we talk more about responsibility in this case. What do you mean by responsible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Again for a better explanation of the laws in your region contact a lawyer
If you are trying to have a discussion about the implications perhaps we could start with your expectations of a fair amd equitable solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
That is governed by complicated statutes which differ by region such that it often requires professionals trained in the law to answer that question on a cade by case basis and the answers they provide are often highly contentious.
If you want to discuss who is legally and fiscally indemnified ask a lawyer.
I think I would find the ought to be a more toothsome subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Any speculation about what happened before the big bang is just that including the speculation that there even was a before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
there had to be a time where physically nothing existed.
How do you know this? I have no reason specifically to take your word for it.
Also while I am prepared to accept that something cannot spontaneously begin to exist for the purpose of this conversation I am not necessarily convinced in my personal philosophy That it would be a total impossibility. From the available evidence I have equal reason to suspect that something at some time some thing spontaneously began to exist (possibly at the same moment in which time began to exist) as to believe in any instigating force. None at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I think you are conflating two entirely different concepts. Until you can unravel them I'm not sure how useful a discussion we can have. It would be like me saying that being a heterosexual sis person were a mental illness. You see how that sort of ad hominem even if not directed at your interlocutor is counterproductive.
It gives the impression that you would rather slander people who have never taken enough interest in you to do you a bad turn than have an honest dialogue even with a neutral third party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It couldn't have always existed, because again, something cannot come from nothing, so at some point, that something had to of come from something.
IF something cannot come from nothing THEN something must have always existed
Everything that currently makes up the universe in an infinitely hot dense point is something. Maybe that is what existed before (if before is even the right word). I have no reason to surmise anything else did since I have no real evidence for anything else.
Do you have any specific reason to believe that the (whatever would eventually evolve into the universe) did not simply always exist? Do you have any evidence to suggest anything else existed in (whatever passed for time before the big bang)?
Since thus effects the very first premise of your argument I really think we should finish clearing this specific point up before moving on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Who is talking about mentally ill people? We are discussing drag queens and transsexuals.
Created:
Posted in:
Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore the matter that started the Big Bang couldn't of been forever existing.
That actually could mean specifically that the (whatever it is that would eventually make up the matter of the universe) always existed... if always is even a coherent term here.
What kind of a force could cause matter to appear from nothing, in a void of nothing. Actually not even a void of nothing, just nothing.
You just said at length that this specific event could not occur so as per your argument there was never a time when there was nothing and then there was matter. Again if any of those terms even have any meaning in this context.
So far you have not eliminated the possibility of all the (whatever would eventually evolve into all the matter) existed for all of (whatever passed for time before the big bang).
So far I don't require a creator even if I accept for the purposes of this argument that the big bang could not have been a spontaneous event.
this force would have to be an intelligent force, because our human brains came from that "explosion" as evolution states so this force would have to be intelligent.
One does not logically follow. The story of the universe would seem to be one of increasing complexity. Of the intelligent literally arising from from the interactions of unintelligent cells. I have no reason to surmise that the cause of the big bang (should the big bang in fact have a cause which you previously argued was impossible since something literally will not come from nothing) was intelligent.
A force that is supernatural, and is intelligent?
Now it's supernatural too? Why would I assume the intelligence that caused the big bang (assuming an intelligence was the cause) would be supernatural or even have meant to do it?
And of course there is more evidence than that, but it would take a long time to write down.
I think I missed the part were you offered any evidence... just a second while I read back...
No just conjecture so far.
Also strangely nothing that points specifically to yahweh. Even if I assumed you were right about there being a god you would still have all your work ahead of you to prove that it is your god.
Created:
Posted in:
I have never met a Transgender person that has tricked me into thinking they are the opposite sex. Never in my life. Not even online.
That you know of. Obviously if they "tricked you" or "fooled you" or more accurately if they presented the gender they identify with as opposed to their assigned birth gender then you wouldn't know it.
See what I'm saying here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The discussion was for Atheists. And how Athiests need this one miracle to justify there view of a world either no miracles.
Atheists are not so far as I know offering any explanations. At least not the Atheists you seem to be addressing. When you only follow the evidence and do not allow yourself to believe things for which you have no compelling evidence you need not justify that which you believe. I believe the big bang happened. I do not know how or why. I do not know where everything came from or if it was always around or if those are even coherent terms for whatever the actual first stage of the big bang actually was. I don't have to justify the big bang if we both agree it happened and I'm not offering any explanation for it. I don't actually identify as an atheist by the by I am just a person who happens to not believe in any god(s) but I figure that's good enough for our purposes.
I would have to go through all the reasons and proofs of why Jesus is God.
Nah,just start with your best one. The clincher. Like the way you know, you know? If that one falls through maybe we can skip a lot of the other arguments. Or if you want we can examine your second best piece of evidence. I got nothin' but time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You seriously believe that you could tell by sight everyone who has a penis without seeing their penis? I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't actually believe you. I think human bodies vary and you will occasionally be fooled even by those who are not transgender. I think that if you saw a very feminine drag queen who identified as a man out of the context of a drag show that you would be unlikely to know it at first glance. I am unconvinced that you would necessarily know at all without being told.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So to recap you are not actually arguing about the big bang at all...
So why did you decide to bring it up at all?
What is your point here?
If we agree that the big bang happened then we have no discussion to have there.
We must go that step beyond. That step where you claim to have special knowledge that is somehow inaccessible to those who do not share your particular view. Since you are the one proposing a specific cause I have to ask... what's your evidence for your particular pet theory? What makes the yahweh a better candidate explanation than say the Great Green Arkleseizure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A woman because women tend to have a more slim figure, and women tend to wear things like makeup and perfume, and high heels.
I didn't actually mention any gender. But let's agree for the sake of this argument that I am definitely describing a woman because we associate all these traits with femininity. Now tell me how you know the person I have described doesn't have a penis without tossing up her skirt which I believe is illegal in most states?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Atheists did not suggest the big bang theory cosmological did. Some cosmologists are atheists others are not. The thing you are talking about does not actually touch on the question of gods at all.
They are unrelated topics.
You are conflating scientific literacy with atheism and they are not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let us say you see an adult human. That adult human is slim. They have long wavy hair and are wearing high heels. They have tasteful makeup and a lovely perfume.
Am I describing a man or a woman?
How did you come to the determination that you did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What your describing is actually biological sex and though there are a few non binary outliers you are in general correct that most folks are born one or the other. You cannot however see a person's genitals or chromosomes when you are making the judgment that they are a man or a woman. Therefore you must be assessing their gender by other criteria.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Where did everything that occupied the tiny space come from then?
The big bang theory is not concerned with where it came from only the hot dense state it once took.
Also the big bang theory is unconnected with atheism specifically. It is not concerned with any gods. Some scientists who study big bang cosmology are also religious. You seem to be conflating scientific literacy with atheism. They are not the same.
The big bang does not specifically preclude the possibility of some deity. In general if someone both identifies as an atheist and is not ignorant in big bang cosmology they would remain atheists even if big bang cosmology were conclusively disproved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What do genitals have to do with gender? You almost never see them before you have mentally assigned a gender to a person therefore I can only conclude they are unimportant in making the assessment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The big bang theory does not in fact suggest that anything came from nothing but rather that everything that exists once occupied a very small point and then began to expand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
To clarify when you say "who pays?" Do you actually mean "who ought to pay?"?
It would seem that the most logical solution would be to take up a collection from the community based on each person's ability to contribute. We might codify this commonwealth into law. A sort of "tax" as it were. Here's an idea we might also use this fund to provide for the elderly and to maintain our infrastructure.
I think my idea might work provided the wealthiest segment of the population pays into the commonwealth at a commiserate rate to the inordinate profits they enjoy. If only the poor are called upon to subsidize the poor, or even if the wealthy are only **mostly** excluded from this responsibility then I fear the system may well break down to the detriment of those who most need it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you have rwo healthy kidneys and a good liver? How about bone marriage? Have you got some of that? When are you scheduled to donate these for transplant saving more than five lives?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I really wouldnt wish to be atheist again. I enjoy talking with God and praying. I dont see why would someone want to be an atheist.
I'm not sure what wanting has to do with it. You are either convinced of a proposition or you are. This has everything to do with how compelling you find the evidence and nothing to do with how compelling you wish the evidence were.
Like, where is justice in the world without God?
Which god? What do you kean by justice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Fossil fuels are literally sustaining human kind right now lol.
This more or less sums up the real problem. The problem that is more basic than the price of fossil fuels. The problem we really need to solve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Your money never had any intrinsic value to begin with. It is nonsense to say that this non value has changed. The value of money is a shared fiction of convenience. Only that shared fiction can change money's actual (non) value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
more realistic
What makes it more realistic? You have only changed the perspective of the statement not its content.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Your argument is silly. The decide between who is willing and indeed able to spend more money than necessary is not a gender line it is a class line. That is why public transportation is better for society than any number of personal electric vehicles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Believe it or not, oil doesn’t grow on trees. It takes months if not years to get a permit, make the rig, drill, transport, refine. It’s supposed to run on futures.
This is all besides the point. 9000 permits is not inconsiderable (arguably it is far to much considering that fossil fuels are destroying the planet's ability to sustain humans.
And death is the feature of socialism
Firstly when you suggest that it is either socialism or capitalism you are not just suggesting a false dichotomy you are suggesting a dichotomy where none exists. Socialism does not preclude capitalism. The forty hour work week, weekends off, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, paid sick leave and maternity leave. These are all SOCIAL programs.
Secondly death is a feature of life and no one gets out alive. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care for each other in solidarity.
I cannot be sure without further discussion but I think you may be thinking of totalitarian regimes that call themselves socialist despite not actually operating according to socialist ideals. There have been many throughout history.
Totalitarianism actually has much more in common with capitalism. They both seek the same end goal of concentrating the wealth and power into as few hands as possible.
I am not arguing to dismantle all capitalism only that we consider the importance of wealth secondary to the importance of human wellbeing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My advice to everyone is to resist the power of the ultra rich. There are far more of us than of them. They do not work 300 times harder than the average person and their salaries are absurd. For them to seek even more wealth and power than they have is, arguably, monstrous. Our fiat currency is not money and hasn't bee since we stopped using the gold standard (which was also made up). One really nasty solar flare and all electronic money could simply disappear. My advice is not to put too much faith in money. Build up humans. They are the most important resource and so their mistreatment at the hands of the rich is counter productive and harmful to the entire race. The rich are holding us back as a species.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Roughly half of all people are "ladies". Your argument doesn't therefore hold water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
IF everything costs exactly what we will pay for it (i.e. what we believe it is worth) THEN inflation is the mass delusion that everything in the world is more valuable today than it was yesterday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I did not say it was the only thing just one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The gas prices were never going down. It would be foolish to expect that. In any case the real cost of fossil fuels isn't even in money it is the human cost. The cost to the planet. No president can resolve this issue by adjusting the monetary cost even if that is within their purview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Futures are a way to protect corperate interests from the market. The ultra wealthy are shielded fro the consequences of their actions in ways that we quite frankly can hardly imagine. An unregulated economy would not deal in futures. Futures are an attempt to subvert the natural ebb and flow of the market.
Recessions, inflation, unemployment, these are all features of capitalism not bugs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the president of the United States of America cannot simply make the oil companies lower their prices why would he be more able to lower a whole host of other services? Clearly these are all dictated by supply and demand too. Surely you don't want the government to force other industries to lower their rates for the oil companies any more than you want him to order the oil companies to lower their prices for us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Economic neophytes don't equate high prices with high production, labor, and transport costs which also translates to a lack of investor funding.
None of which is under the control of the president of the United States of America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Perhaps... or perhaps there are in excess of 9000 drilling permits already not being used amd the industry is simply always willing to take advantage of any shortage (or supposed shortage) to aquire more permits to hoard against the future.Nope, too costly to get permits. They aren't going to act against their own financial interests.
What I'm saying is that they already have permits which they are not using for one reason or another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Oil companies control supply artificially in much the same way as the diamond industry.They aren’t though. They want to drill and frack, but Biden denied permits. Therefore Biden is decreasing supply, not the companies.
Perhaps... or perhaps there are in excess of 9000 drilling permits already not being used amd the industry is simply always willing to take advantage of any shortage (or supposed shortage) to aquire more permits to hoard against the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I am unaware of having changed my stance. Inflation is a tool just like any economic tool.
Created: